The almighty parking saga - a victory of sorts?

[Phurrball]

Ok -

Many of you will be aware of my ongoing annoyance with various actions of our fair city's finest parking wardens.

I count myself fortunate as I am in a good position to formulate adequate responses rather than roll over for the man - this doesn't mean I have the time to do this, and the research is at a cost to my ongoing committments.

Since there has been TV coverage on the matter, it is of greater than normal interest, so I thought I'd set out the saga so far.

It's worth pointing out I'm no saint - I've accrued many tickets that I deserved. I pay these. Somtimes the council have been merciful and let me off when perhaps they legitimately might not have.

As a poor student living miles away with minimal public transport, it's always a choice whether to risk over staying, or not paying. Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. That's life. I live with most of what is slapped on the car. It contributes to congestion and takes up a lot of room.

However, I can and I will crusade against baltant unfairness with all of my skills and resources.

All I want is a common-sense approach rather than pedantic ticketing of technical breaches that harm no one - ESPECIALLY FOR MOTORCYCLES WHICH DESERVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF THEIR HIGH OCCUPANCY, FUEL EFFICIENCY AND CONGESTION-BUSTING SIZE

I think we are getting the powers that be to listen. I am happy with the response I received from Mr Tomlinson, the head parking man. He seems pretty reasonable.

Here is teh saga so far. Read "Letter 1" first, then "ACC response". These are both attached to this post. There is more to follow. Some edits have been made to protect privacy.

[Phurrball]

OK - after reading the response from the infringement review person. I was enraged and incredulous.

Then amused as I'm pretty certin victory would be mine in the District Court.

I'd rather not go that far though, it is a waste of my time and money, and that of Auckland's long-suffering ratepayers.

Note the attached photos.

Last night I emailed Mr Tomlinson, the head parking man:

[Please note courtesy copies of this email to other interested parties: Les Mason, BRONZ; Stephen Dodge, AUSMC; Phil Vine, TVNZ Fair Go.]

Dear Mr Tomlinson,


I wish to express my disturbance at a quite unsatisfactory response from your infringement review team. Les Mason from BRONZ gave me your email address in regards to this matter.

I suggest that you read the attached correspondence and detailed supporting materials as attached to fully appreciate my concerns.

First, read my detailed letter and the supporting materials, and then read the response I received from your staff. These are labelled accordingly in folders within the attached zip file – I apologise for the large size of this, but as you will see, it is very comprehensive.

I am concerned that I may have struck a similar administrative error to the one detailed in the recent Fair Go piece regarding your parking officers and their approach to motorcycles. TVNZ’s Phil Vine received a hard copy of my letter during discussions leading up to that story.

I am anxious to avoid wasting Auckland ratepayers’ money on a court case which I believe Auckland City Parking Services would loose in the District Court based on the binding High Court precedents, statutory requirements and other evidence I can adduce – all of which I have set out in detail.

I imagine you are glad the response from your review team was not public, as the first lines insinuate that either I am mistaken or lying regarding the broken sign.

It is even more surprising that your review officer decides I am mistaken and officer 212 is correct about the state of the sign without asking to view the photographic evidence I possess.

I take my reputation very seriously for professional reasons, as shortly I must have my good character certified to the Auckland District Law society when I am admitted to the bar.

Quotes from unpublished High Court decisions should allude to the letter writer as having either legal training or advice. Your review team may wish to be more observant of the sources of supporting material when assessing the merits of submissions.

The evidential photographs I have are in series with the ‘Insecure SVIN.jpg’ photo attached – you may wish to note the date and time stamp on that, and observe the high resolution photos taken the following day that confirm my statements regarding the broken sign. For technical reasons I cannot retrieve the balance of these photos from my phone without expert assistance. I am happy to show these to you if you desire, and I will retrieve them to submit to any District Court hearing should you not be minded to review this decision.

I also note that the brochure regarding court hearings was not in this letter, as referred to at the end of page 1 and the start of page 2.

I suggest that you review this decision along the lines requested in my letter to avoid the unnecessary waste of the time and money of all parties to any court case.

I am happy to meet with you regarding this should you wish.

Yours Sincerely,

Ross Dellow.

PS – you may wish to have a look into the correspondence in the ‘Additional matter’ folder. A wagon or hatch can be a GSV under certain circumstances. Are you really happy with officer 71 issuing a mail-out ticket that indicates he wasn’t close enough to serve the ticket on the vehicle, let alone properly ascertain whether the vehicle concerned was a GSV? See the letter.

[Phurrball]

Phew! are you still with me?

OK - here's where things start to get better:

[Note some more documents in support - these are court cases and a bit heavy going and dry. You were warned.]

Mr Tomlinson's very reasonable response:

Hi Ross,

Thank you very much for bringing this matter to my attention, no need to apologise for the size of the file, on the contrary I appreciate the lengths with which you have captured information regarding this matter.

Similarly, I appreciate your concern in regard to wasting ratepayers money and my objective is certainly to ensure that these matters are resolved before a decision is made to proceed with court lodgement.

I have initiated an investigation into the matter and I welcome your offer to meet with me to discuss this and I may take you up on your generosity.

I will ensure that the infringements are placed on hold in our system immediately pending an outcome of the investigation so that no further unnecessary action occurs.

Having seen the full story in fair go last week and taking advantage of your CC to Stephen, I have asked one of my managers to contact Stephen to put in place a dedicated case manager to deal with any queries or concerns from the Uni motorcycle club and review any current issues.

I am very keen to support motorcycles and scooters as a transport choice for Auckland City and I will also be canvassing the idea of setting up a stakeholder group with representatives from perhaps BRONZ, Uni Club etc. to look at developing motorcycle and scooter solutions for Auckland City.

Again, I will ensure that this important matter you have raised will receive my full attention. I anticipate that this investigation will require two-three days before I can respond to this matter and ascertain the need to engage in your time further. I will contact you on Tuesday with where we are at with this.

Thank you again for your diligence in pursuing this issue

Regards
Brian

This looks good. We may yet get a sensible approach through a bit of effort and some cooperation.

[Ixion]

Well done.

It may of interest that, many years ago, I received a ticket for parking in a "No parking" area (ironically, I think it was in Symonds St, though a very different Symonds St then).

I contested the ticket (from ACC) on the grounds that although there WAS a sign saying no parking, access to the vicinity of the sign was blocked by construction work. A wire barrier of the usual type had been erected around the construction zone, adjacent to where I parked. The area fenced off by barrier included the pole on which the sign was. The barrier prevented anyone from approaching the pole to view the sign, which was moreover obscured by cement trucks and such like.

The council cancelled the ticket

I have written , on behalf of BRONZ , today to Mr Tomlinson asking where the extra bike parking he promised has gone to.

ar

[Phurrball]

OK -

A quick vote of thanks -

One man ranting in letters is a crank. A group of interested stakeholders is worth listening to (Stolen from Ixion's inimitable wisdom I think)

We would not be where we are today without the concerted efforts of the following people and organisations:

Ixion and BRONZ, Stephen [El Presidenté] AUSMC, Luke, and Phil from Fair Go. Others have helped and supported too.

Thanks too are due to Brian Tomlinson, for his willingness to listen.

I'm off to collapse now...

[Squiggles]

I have asked one of my managers to contact Stephen to put in place a dedicated case manager to deal with any queries or concerns from the Uni motorcycle club and review any current issues.

That'd be the message on me voicemail then.... better topup!

[Ragingrob]

You are a legend Ross. Good work to all those people involved in these matters! That is a brilliant outcome and it looks like more good news is awaiting us in the future.

Two thumbs up from me

P.S. I saw you knock that sign down Ross you sly fox!

[Phurrball]

[snippity]
P.S. I saw you knock that sign down Ross you sly fox!

Winky all right.

I think that's what upset me the most.

The sign genuinely was broken and I genuinely didn't see it. I believed my parking was OK based on a quick glance at the signage.

I can't say I like an atmosphere of fear that dissuades bikes in the CBD through fear of tickets.

I would have deserved the ticket if I was just being a clever dick, but I wasn't. Tickets issued to about 4ish other bikes and scooters too.

As Ixion says - it's been law for a long time that signage must be effective. It isn't if it's broken or obscured. The broken sign could not be seen from a vehicle on the carrigeway. It was bloody obvious to a pedestrian (like a parking warden).

Sigh. I just want common sense to prevail WRT parking, rather than the enormous time and effort required to take on a ticket issued in seconds. *I'm starting to sound like Peter Dunne. Please shoot me now...*

[Fatjim]

Mate, if you had left it 2 months and then complained you would have got off this as the guy who issued the infringement if he still worked for the council would I doubt remember your circumstances. You just need to ask the right questions.

My favourite ticket is inconsiderate parking. Most parking wardens are too young to know what the word means, let alone be able to describe it in detail.

[Phurrball]

Mate, if you had left it 2 months and then complained you would have got off this as the guy who issued the infringement if he still worked for the council would I doubt remember your circumstances. You just need to ask the right questions.

My favourite ticket is inconsiderate parking. Most parking wardens are too young to know what the word means, let alone be able to describe it in detail.

Doesn't seem to work that way Fatjim. You can be as well-reasoned as you like, policy seems to be to call your bluff and invite you to go to court. Unless of course I just struck an 'administrative error' like in the Fair Go case.

Parking wardens SHOULD be ticketing for inconsiderate parking rather than just the easy pickings. The Police too, should be ticketing for retarded and dangerous driving too more than minor speeding.

'tis all about what's easy to prove in my humble (and jaded) opinion.

'tis just not the way the world works these days with key performance indicators in play.

It's amazing what you can be ticketed for under the ACC bylaw and Road User Rule 2004. I'm waaay to familiar with these for my own good.

[Real_Wolf]

You know, if parking wardens took PICTURES of the cars tehy ticket, proving it, which wouldn't be too hard (how many phones don't have camera's these days, your telling me the PDA's they use can't get a little camera attatched?), then they can take a picture as evidence.

Yes, there will still be the problem of them taking a picture which doesn't actually show the "problem", like your broken sign, but in general it'd show what they actually looked for, and then it'd be easy to tell them why they were wrong, and what they screwed up

[Patar]

I want phurrball to be my own personal parking offences lawyer, too bad I can only pay with lint and paper clips atm

[rie]

mighty good job, ross. law school is useful in all kinds of ways but i am pleased to see you capitalising those skills. i would certainly consider this a victory in many different ways.

...on the flipside, now you have all your riding mates trying to bum legal work off you.

[Squiggles]

You know, if parking wardens took PICTURES of the cars tehy ticket, proving it, which wouldn't be too hard (how many phones don't have camera's these days, your telling me the PDA's they use can't get a little camera attatched?), then they can take a picture as evidence.

Luke has a picture they took, its from the rear and only shows the plate really

[Gubb]

Awesome work mate, next time though, remember that there is a subtle difference between "lose" and "loose".

I know it's pedantic, but after all that effort, little things make a difference.

Top work though.